ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [377] -- Toss Of A Coin

[ Posted Friday, February 5th, 2016 – 17:06 PST ]

Appropriately, for the week which will also contain the Super Bowl, the first state to weigh in on the presidential election was decided (for Democrats) by a coin-toss. Or, to be accurate, seven of them. With tied caucuses in seven precincts, tossing a coin determined the winner between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Clinton won six coin-tosses, Sanders only one. Because of this, Clinton claimed a razor-edge victory in the whole state. To put it plainly, she got lucky. If the coin tosses had been a little less lopsided, Bernie would have had the opportunity to claim victory. Such is life, and such is the political process in Iowa.

Iowa officially kicked off (to continue our football metaphor) the 2016 primary season this week. New Hampshire is next in line, followed by Nevada and South Carolina (for Democrats), or South Carolina and Nevada (for Republicans). Then at the beginning of next month we move from retail politics to the wholesale frenzy of Super Tuesday. Game on, folks!

Of course, when the finals approach, some teams are left by the wayside. A record four candidates bowed out of the race this week, three Republicans (Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, and Rick Santorum) and Democrat Martin O'Malley. This whittles the total down to eleven candidates (enough for a scrimmage football team!), with two Democrats and nine Republicans left on the field -- all arguing about who is gets to be quarterback. Carly Fiorina just got demoted from the upcoming Republican debate, and so far New Hampshire looks pretty wide-open for the GOP. So grab chips and dip, then sit back and watch the show.

Democrats are down to a head-to-head contest, which was on full display last night in a debate that Debbie Wasserman Schultz never wanted to see happen (for some strange reason). Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders made their respective cases fairly well, and the jostling between them for position was notable.

As always, there were several missed opportunities, both for the candidates and for the moderators. Not that Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow didn't do a good job, but we were left with several questions we wish had been asked. By candidate, here's what we would have asked.

For Hillary Clinton: You say you're for expanding Obamacare to cover 100 percent of the public, so how will you achieve this? How, specifically, can Obamacare be improved to become truly universal? You've said before, and I quote, "I am not going to wait and have us plunge back into a contentious national debate that has very little chance of succeeding," but how do you square this defeatism with your campaign slogan of "fighting every day" for average Americans? Are you only going to "fight every day" for things the Republicans in Congress agree to do? And finally, can you understand why some Democrats think you are too conservative when you repeatedly cite Henry Kissinger in a positive way? Most Democrats remember Henry Kissinger's time in office a little less fondly than you appear to.

For Bernie Sanders: You explained that you had to compromise on the veterans' reform bill you got through Congress. So why isn't it just as understandable when other Democrats -- Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama -- have to compromise on Progressive goals in order to get legislation actually passed? You say you'll have a litmus test for Supreme Court justice appointees on overturning Citizens United, but there is another way to do so. Would you support a constitutional amendment to not only overturn Citizens United but also to clearly state that corporations should not be treated as "people" in the political arena?

For both candidates: Should you fail in gaining the nomination, will you aggressively campaign for your opponent and do everything you can to convince your supporters to vote for him or her? The two of you quibble over some pretty arcane details on reforming Wall Street, but you both seem to agree that reform is necessary. So if your opponent's reform plan -- exactly as described -- came to you as a bill if you were president, would you sign it into law or veto it? Why?

Both candidates last night missed a few opportunities to paint a clear difference with the other. Bernie Sanders, in particular, missed a golden chance to hit Clinton when Rachel Maddow asked him a question which started off with the example of Barry Goldwater. Sanders, before he launched into the rest of his answer, could easily have prefaced it (he had already joked about being asked about something that happened in 1964) with something along the lines of: "I remember that Goldwater election -- I didn't vote for him and didn't campaign for him." He wouldn't have even had to use the term "Goldwater Girl," as the media would have happily dug it out for him. He had another chance to take the same shot when Clinton talked about being energized about politics when she was the age of "a lot of Sanders supporters." Sanders could also have called Clinton on the carpet about that Kissinger praise, as well. Clinton missed the chance to make what we think would be a truly excellent argument for her -- that she will be much better in a debate against a Republican. Clinton could have said something like: "Think this debate is tough? Who do you really want on stage debating Republicans, me or Bernie?" Democrats definitely have their eyes on the final prize, and Hillary should be making the case that she'll run a better general campaign than Bernie could manage.

Carping aside, we thought both Clinton and Sanders had a good night. The questioners were very savvy on Democratic issues and they allowed several free exchanges between the candidates to continue (always easier when there are only two candidates). We're never big fans of picking winners and losers of presidential debates, and last night was no different. Did Clinton or Sanders "win" the debate? Well, we'd have to call it a coin-toss, at best.

Not much else was in the news in the political world. Unemployment hit a new post-recession low of 4.9 percent. Even better, wages may be starting to rise as we approach what economists call "full employment." Too early to tell, but the signs are encouraging.

Out west, the world's first legal drive-through marijuana store will open soon: "A recreational marijuana drive-thru window is set to open in Gold Beach, Oregon on April 20, 2016. The window will be the first of its kind in the nation and will be located near the border of California." Location, location, location! Heh. Gotta love that grand opening date, too.

What else? Best headline of the week, from New Zealand: "Flying Pink Dildo Hits Politician In The Face During Presser" (said dildo was heaved with a cry of "that's for raping our sovereignty," in protest over the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal). Truly, a headline for the ages.

Finally, Saturday Night Live is being hosted this week by Larry David, and it has already been noted that Bernie Sanders plans to travel to New York City on the same night. It's only a rumor so far, but it wouldn't surprise us in the least if Sanders shows up for a cameo with the comedian who has done the most brilliant impersonation of him to date. So there's that to look forward to.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders deserve at least Honorable Mentions this week, both for tying each other in Iowa and for very impressive debate performances.

But instead, we're going to hand the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award to whomever came up with the most pointed question of the night. The questioner wasn't named, all Chuck Todd said about him or her was that the question "comes to us through New England Cable News."

The question was to Hillary Clinton, about whether she would release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs. This issue has cropped up in online discussions among Democrats, after someone recently pointed out that her speaking contract specifies that the only transcripts or recordings of her speeches will be made by her own employee -- meaning that transcripts to all of her speeches should be both available to Clinton and fully within her control. Here is Chuck Todd, reading the exact question (he paraphrases the middle of it):

"I am concerned with the abuses of Wall Street has taken with the American taxpayers money," and then she asks whether you would release the transcripts of your Goldman Sachs speeches, and then added, "Don't you think the voting public has a right to know what was said?"

We were impressed by the question's specificity, and by the fact that it was a better question than most asked last night. It was directed at Clinton, but we would have been just as impressed if similar questions from average voters had been asked of Sanders, as well. We firmly believe that involved voters at times can have much more specific questions than are ever asked by journalists or debate moderators. We also hope that the professional journalists will follow up on this question, especially after Clinton all but blew it off in her answer. She started off with: "I will look into it. I don't know the status, but I will certainly look into it." Three sentences later she said: "My view on this is look at my record." Again, we're hoping some enterprising journalist out there realizes that these speeches are indeed part of her record, and that the public can't "look at" these speeches until she releases those transcripts.

Again, there are plenty of unanswered questions for Bernie which could have been asked as well -- sadly, this example was the only question asked from an average citizen during the whole debate. For breaking through the gatekeepers of journalism and for asking a substantive and specific question that could reveal more of the Clinton record, we have to anonymously award the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to whomever sent in that question. Political journalism ain't rocket science -- even average citizens can move the debate forward, at times.

[If anyone knows who the author of this question was, let us know in the comments so we can attach the correct name to the award.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

We're happy to say that no Democrat disappointed us enough to merit an award this week. If we've failed to notice some egregiously disappointing behavior, please let us know in the comments and maybe we'll agree and retroactively award the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week in hindsight.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 377 (2/5/16)

We are turning over the talking points this week to the two Democratic candidates for president. All of these were uttered during last night's debate, taken from the Washington Post transcript. Things like "(APPLAUSE)" were edited out, but that's the only editing that was done. In what we believe is a first for us, we're going to limit the talking points to six, so that both candidates get equal coverage. Also, these are presented in the order they appeared during the debate. These quotes are what we though were both candidates' best moments of the night.

 

1
   Hillary's main case

Because she had been directly challenged over the issue of her progressivism, Hillary Clinton repeated what will doubtlessly be a go-to campaign slogan for her from now on. The first time she used it, she laid out exactly what she thought it meant.

I am a Progressive who gets things done. And the root of that word, progressive, is progress. But I've heard Senator Sanders comments, and it's really caused me to wonder who's left in the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Under his definition, President Obama is not Progressive because he took donations from Wall Street; Vice President Biden is not Progressive because he supported Keystone; Senator Shaheen is not Progressive because she supports the trade pact. Even the late, great Senator Paul Wellstone would not fit this definition because he voted for DOMA.

 

2
   Bernie's main case

A little further on, Bernie Sanders made his main case, in response to whether Hillary Clinton was part of the "establishment" or not (Clinton tried to laugh this off by playing the gender card, without notable success).

I will absolutely admit that Secretary Clinton has the support of far more governors, mayors, members of the House. She has the entire establishment or almost the entire establishment behind her. That's a fact. I don't deny it. But I am pretty proud that we have over a million people who have contributed to our campaign averaging 27 bucks apiece. That we have had meetings where 25,000-30,000 people have come out. That our campaign is a campaign of the people, by the people, and for the people. So, Rachel, yes, Secretary Clinton does represent the establishment. I represent, I hope, ordinary Americans.

 

3
   Hillary: Say it to my face, Bernie!

Clinton had her best moment of the night (in our opinion) when she directly took on Bernie's innuendo over her ties to Wall Street. Sanders didn't take her up on her challenge, and responded in general terms about Wall Street corruption. But taking this shot across Bernie's bow was smart politics for Clinton.

I think it's fair to really ask what's behind that comment. You know, Senator Sanders has said he wants to run a positive campaign. I've tried to keep my disagreements over issues, as it should be. But time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth, which really comes down to -- you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. And I just absolutely reject that, Senator. And I really don't think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough. If you've got something to say, say it directly. But you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that I ever received.

 

4
   Sanders: Wall Street plays by different rules

Bernie had plenty of quotable moments when talking about how Wall Street operates by different rules than the rest of us. At one point, he directly stated "the business model of Wall Street is fraud." So there were a lot of quotes to choose from. Below is our favorite from the night.

Goldman Sachs was one of those companies whose illegal activity helped destroy our economy and ruin the lives of millions of Americans. But this is what a rigged economy and a corrupt campaign finance system and a broken criminal justice is about. These guys are so powerful that not one of the executives on Wall Street has been charged with anything after paying, in this case of Goldman Sachs, a $5 billion fine. Kid gets caught with marijuana, that kid has a police record. A Wall Street executive destroys the economy, $5 billion settlement with the government, no criminal record. That is what power is about. That is what corruption is about. And that is what has to change in the United States of America.

 

5
   Sanders: I never said that!

Sanders has had plenty of opportunities to take on what Clinton has been saying about him out on the campaign trail. He's been pushing back on the strawman notion (which Clinton has been using for weeks) that he would somehow join with Republicans to dismantle Obamacare before even having the debate on single-payer. But last night, Bernie pushed back on another falsehood: that he would normalize relations with Iran immediately.

Who said that [I] think we should normalize relations with Iran tomorrow? I never said that. I think we should move forward as quickly as we can. And you're right. They are a sponsor of terrorism around the world and we have to address that. But you know, a number of years ago, people were saying normal relationship with Cuba, what a bad and silly idea. They're Communists, they are our enemy. Well guess what? Change has come. So please don't suggest that I think we normalize relations with Tehran tomorrow. We don't. But I would like to see us move forward, and hopefully some day that will happen. And I would say if I might, Madam Secretary -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong. When you ran against Senator Obama you thought him naive because he thought it was a good idea to talk to our enemies. I think those are exactly the people you have to talk to and you have to negotiate with.

 

6
   Clinton: My agenda is bold

Clinton, in one of the final questions of the night, totally ignored the moderator's premise, which was to name the number one priority she'd have in office. Instead, Clinton turned the question on its head and trotted out her whole agenda. She was forceful, she sounded strong, and it wound up being one of her best moments of the night.

I'm for a lot of things. I don't want to just stop bad things from happening, I want to start good things happening. And I believe, if I'm so fortunate to get the nomination, I will begin to work immediately on putting together an agenda, beginning to talk with members of Congress and others about how we can push forward. I want to have half a billion more solar panels deployed, the first four years. I want to have enough clean energy to power every home the next four years. I want us to keep working on the Affordable Care Act, to get not only to 100 percent coverage, but bring down the costs of prescription drugs and out-of-pocket costs. I want to move forward on paid family leave, on early childhood education, I want us to do more for small businesses. Small businesses have to create most of the jobs, and we're not creating and growing small businesses. I think, if you have a smart agenda, you pick the committees that you know have to begin to work on these various pieces -- because that's the way Congress is set up. You go through different committees, and you really make a big push in the beginning. Immigration reform, economic revitalization with manufacturing, with infrastructure -- we put it out there, and we begin to work on an ambitious, big, bold agenda that will actually produce the results that I want to see for our country.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

175 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [377] -- Toss Of A Coin”

  1. [1] 
    neilm wrote:

    CW:

    Are you sure you are right in the following statements:

    1. There were 7 coin tosses and Clinton won 6
    2. This resulted in her winning rather than losing to Bernie?

    Here is NPR's Coin Toss Fact Check:

    http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton

  2. [2] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    CW -

    I think you need to be precise about what was won in each of the coin tosses. The way you have written this suggests that it was national delegates which is grossly misleading. In fact, it's flat-out wrong.

    I think it would also have been fairer to add that the state Democratic Party reported six coin toss wins to Bernie Sanders also. By limiting the number of coin tosses reported to just seven, six of which were won by Clinton, and failing to mention the other coin tosses which the state Democratic Party confirms took place, is just fueling a conspiracy theory that, in essence, has no basis.

    Asserting that "...tossing a coin determined the winner between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton." is a false statement.

    The Salon article you linked to was also wrong in another respect: it asserted that 43 national delegates were allocated by the Iowa caucuses. But Iowa has 44 national delegates and none of them were determined at the Iowa caucuses which are held chiefly to elect county chairpersons and committees and determine delegates to county conferences. What they emphatically do not do is determine how many national delegates each presidential candidate will have at the national convention.

    The supposed allocation of national delegates to Democratic presidential candidates is just for show and means nothing since the Iowa national delegates are free to vote their consciences on the day of the Democratic Convention. They are not bound by any caucus results and never have been.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    t much else was in the news in the political world. Unemployment hit a new post-recession low of 4.9 percent. Even better, wages may be starting to rise as we approach what economists call "full employment." Too early to tell, but the signs are encouraging.

    Almost 700,000 jobs LOST is "encouraging"??

    She started off with: "I will look into it. I don't know the status, but I will certainly look into it." Three sentences later she said: "My view on this is look at my record." Again, we're hoping some enterprising journalist out there realizes that these speeches are indeed part of her record, and that the public can't "look at" these speeches until she releases those transcripts.

    Camp Clinton have already refused to release those transcripts..

    Wonder what she is hiding.. I wonder how ya'all will defend her over it.. :D

    We're happy to say that no Democrat disappointed us enough to merit an award this week. If we've failed to notice some egregiously disappointing behavior, please let us know in the comments and maybe we'll agree and retroactively award the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week in hindsight.

    Really?? NO disappointing Democrats..

    Iowa margin shifts as errors found...

    Clinton camp trying to shut down questions...

    DEMS 'ALTERED' CAUCUS COUNT...

    How about Democrat officials in Iowa who are in the bag for Hillary and are refusing to release the raw numbers or count, re-count and count them again??

    Wasn't that what ya'all wanted in 2000 with Gore v Bush???

    But NOW ya'all won't support a re-count. Well, one of ya'all has....

    Once again, the ALMIGHTY '-D' at work... PARTY UBER ALLES

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think it would also have been fairer to add that the state Democratic Party reported six coin toss wins to Bernie Sanders also. By limiting the number of coin tosses reported to just seven, six of which were won by Clinton, and failing to mention the other coin tosses which the state Democratic Party confirms took place, is just fueling a conspiracy theory that, in essence, has no basis.

    The other coin tosses that were allegedly won by Sanders are nothing but rumors. There were only 6 documented coin tosses and ALL of them were won by Clinton...

    I have posted all the links that PROVE this beyond any doubt.. If you don't want to go back, let me know and I will bring them forward..

    The supposed allocation of national delegates to Democratic presidential candidates is just for show and means nothing since the Iowa national delegates are free to vote their consciences on the day of the Democratic Convention. They are not bound by any caucus results and never have been.

    So, what you are saying is that the Iowa Democrat Party caucus is a huge waste of time and doesn't mean anything because Democrat Party leaders will do what they want when the time comes..

    hmmmmmmmmmm

    And ya'all claim that the GOP is frak'ed up!?? :D

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am a Progressive who gets things done. And the root of that word, progressive, is progress.

    Keep in mind one thing...

    Hillary had to "evolve" in being a progressive..

    More accurately, Hillary only BECAME a "progressive" when it became politically imperative to do so...

    I honestly can't understand how a TRUE progressive could even THINK of voting Hillary over Bernie...

    I will absolutely admit that Secretary Clinton has the support of far more governors, mayors, members of the House. She has the entire establishment or almost the entire establishment behind her. That's a fact. I don't deny it. But I am pretty proud that we have over a million people who have contributed to our campaign averaging 27 bucks apiece. That we have had meetings where 25,000-30,000 people have come out. That our campaign is a campaign of the people, by the people, and for the people. So, Rachel, yes, Secretary Clinton does represent the establishment. I represent, I hope, ordinary Americans.

    And the Left Wingery is going to vote for HILLARY over Bernie!???

    WHY!???

    Oh, I know why... Because, when it comes right down to it, where the rubber hits the road, morals and integrity and principles go out the window..

    At THAT point, winning is all that matters...

    And ya'all wonder why the Left Wingery can't elect true progressives to office.. :^/

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    In Grinnell Ward 1, the precinct where elite liberal arts college Grinnell College is located, 19 delegates were awarded to Bernie Sanders and seven were awarded to Hillary Clinton on caucus night. However, the Iowa Democratic party decided to shift one delegate from Sanders to Clinton on the night and did not notify precinct secretary J Pablo Silva that they had done so. Silva only discovered that this happened the next day, when checking the precinct results in other parts of the county.

    No disappointing Democrats??

    Shirley, you jest.... :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the results of the Bernie/Hillary debate... :D

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZylLPYUsAEuSmH.jpg

    Heh :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://spectator.org/articles/65395/it%E2%80%99s-happening-just-i-told-you

    This is how Hillary's campaign will end..

    Ya'all need to come to terms with the reality.. Hillary's playing fast and loose with TS/SAP documents and operative's lives is not some faux scandal...

    Speaking of that... Neil, do we have a wager?? :D

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Mopshell-2

    Nice work.

    neilm - 1. The NPR link is the best researched piece of reporting I've read on the subject.

    Reporters and readers seem to be confusing caucus for election, precincts for delegates. Outside the area in question, the intricacies of local politics are poorly understood. The number of coin tosses, and who won them is in dispute. Up to to the minute reporting isn't necessarily good reporting. This is one of those cases where you need to wait for the book.

    Everything I've seen points to a manufactured scandal...situation normal in politics. There likely is some genuine scandal, (it's local politics fer crizsakes) but what we are hearing mostly isn't it.

  10. [10] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Mopshell-2

    Nice work.

    neilm - 1. The NPR link is the best researched piece of reporting I've read on the subject.

    Reporters and readers seem to be confusing caucus for election, precincts for delegates. Outside the area in question, the intricacies of local politics are poorly understood. The number of coin tosses, and who won them is in dispute. Up to to the minute reporting isn't necessarily good reporting. This is one of those cases where you need to wait for the book.

    Everything I've seen points to a manufactured scandal...situation normal in politics. There likely is some genuine scandal, (it's local politics fer crizsakes) but what we are hearing mostly isn't it.

  11. [11] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Mopshell-2

    Nice work.

    neilm - 1. The NPR link is the best researched piece of reporting I've read on the subject.

    Reporters and readers seem to be confusing caucus for election, precincts for delegates. Outside the area in question, the intricacies of local politics are poorly understood. The number of coin tosses, and who won them is in dispute. Up to to the minute reporting isn't necessarily good reporting. This is one of those cases where you need to wait for the book.

    Everything I've seen points to a manufactured scandal...situation normal in politics. There likely is some genuine scandal, (it's local politics fer crizsakes) but what we are hearing mostly isn't it.

  12. [12] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Soory for the double tap.

  13. [13] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Who cares about the damned coin tosses? We have banks to close and criminals to jail.

    The Banker's Coin Toss: Heads we win, tails you lose.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Soory for the double tap.

    You mean triple tap... :D

    Everything I've seen points to a manufactured scandal...

    So, I guess Bernie is as bad as the Republicans what with "manufactured scandals" and all.. :D

    Whatever it takes to protect Queen Hillary.. :D

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all gotta admire the dynamic here..

    *I* am the one defending the only truly "progressive" candidate in the race... :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Something needs to be done about the Cheatin' Canadian Cretin, OK? We can't allow unfair vote fraud schemes from fraudulent contestants in a Republican caucus. Terrible! "Billionaire" Donald Trump says he could shoot some random person in public and his fans wouldn't even care. I doubt that is true, but I'm sure that he could hit Pants On Fire Cruz with a folding chair and choke him with his toupee and it would go over very well. Just think of the ratings! Trump could move Carson's fans over to Trump's tribe and the Cuban Creepo would be finished in this business.

  17. [17] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Bernie Sanders wins the New Hampshire Name Recognition Derby because he lives in another state.

  18. [18] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    In the ring, they call him Marco "The Spender". He's no tax and spend librul though. He spends recklessly on himself, but says that Social Security and Medicare "actually weakened us as a people". He's weak on immigration. His pretty hair enrages Trump and he wears Froot Boots too! A cage match between the two will end badly for the Bubble Boy and his pre-recorded talking points. Weak!

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    "DOGS BARKING CAN'T FLY HOME WITHOUT UMBRELLA"

    heh :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nothing like being a spammer, eh JFC.. :D

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    As I sit here, listening to Barry Manilow's THIS ONE'S FOR YOU, I have something for you...

    Democratic donor contacts Biden allies about possible run
    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/democratic-donor-contacts-biden-allies-possible-run-010248619.html

    And it's even Canadian!!! :D

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    At THAT point, winning is all that matters...

    And ya'all wonder why the Left Wingery can't elect true progressives to office.. :^/

    Losing presidential elections is the current specialty of the Republicans, Michale ... 2008, 2012 ... ;)

    Please, please nominate Trump. The rest of the field is downright crazy (so is Trump, but he is so unelectable that he removes even the small chance a Rubio or Cruz might have over an electorally disastrous pie-in-the-sky candidate like Bernie).

    To me, it looks like the air is coming out of the Trump bubble and inflating Rubio. Is that airing (har har) in the RWNJ media?

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Losing presidential elections is the current specialty of the Republicans, Michale ... 2008, 2012 ... ;)

    I was referring to the upteen times that Weigantians have bitched and moaned that they can't elect REAL progressives..

    The problem is is that they SETTLE for faux progressives..

    electorally disastrous pie-in-the-sky candidate like Bernie

    Wow... Can I quote you on that? :D

    When Hillary is indicted or when the FBI forwards a recommendation of indictment to the DOJ, I bet you'll change your tune on Bernie.. :D

    Do we have a bet?? :D

    Is that airing (har har) in the RWNJ media?

    I wouldn't know... Not being eslaved by Party ideology, I mean.. :D

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    When Hillary is indicted or when the FBI forwards a recommendation of indictment to the DOJ, I bet you'll change your tune on Bernie.. :D

    You gotta ask yourself one question..

    Why would THE most apolitical man in DC, a man whose integrity is above reproach, a man who became the toast of the Left Wingery....

    Why would such a man expend so much effort, so much money, so much manpower of
    "nothing"???

    Answer: He wouldn't...

    Keep your head in the sand if you wish..

    But the facts clearly show that this is not just a faux scandal from the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"....

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    Do we have a bet?? :D

    No bet, because you are completely right. I'll immediately switch to Bernie - I'm not worried about 2016, more about 2020.

    Unfortunately for the RWNJs in 2016 the -Rs are so hopeless they couldn't beat a ham sandwich - especially if they pick Trump or Cruz. Bernie is a better candidate than any of them.

    I think that the R establishment will let Cruz or Trump win the nomination and get thumped by Hillary, but if Bernie gets the nomination they will do everything short of excommunicating Ted and The Donald to get Rubio to run - the best chance for Rs in 2016 (the best chance does not mean a winning chance, just not a certain loser) is Bernie/Rubio.

    Rubio will probably try to do a Latino pivot, but by that time I think it will be all over after Trump and Cruz have insulted them for over a year, and Bernie can put the nail in that coffin by choosing one of the Castro brothers as VP.

    Interesting race. Prepare to hear a lot of 'I'm moving to Canada' quotes from both sides over the next 9 months.

    Michale: you never answered my question - what are the RW media saying about the air coming out of the Trump parade balloon? Squeaky bum time yet?

  26. [26] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Trump loves New Hampshire and feels very comfortable there. He has many friends and gets invited to dinner often. Very beautiful, but we have to take back our country by making good deals. Trump would tell those Persians that “we owe $19 trillion. We’re a country that has no money. We can’t give you the $150 billion.” They won’t even notice that Trump is a reality TV celebrity ignoramus who has no idea what he’s talking about. Iran will get schlonged and America will be white again!

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    No bet, because you are completely right.

    So, we agree that FBI Director Comey will forward a recommendation of indictment against Hillary and/or senior Clinton staff...

    And what do you think such a recommendation will do to Hillary's campaign??

    I'll tell you. It will DESTROY it.. Completely and utterly DECIMATE it..

    Hope Director Comey has a great security detail.. He doesn't want to get Foster'ed or Brown'ed....

    Unfortunately for the RWNJs in 2016 the -Rs are so hopeless they couldn't beat a ham sandwich

    That's what ya'all said before the 2014 mid terms.. And then there was the Nuclear Shellacking...

    especially if they pick Trump or Cruz. Bernie is a better candidate than any of them.

    And yet, yer a Clintonista.. :D

    Michale: you never answered my question - what are the RW media saying about the air coming out of the Trump parade balloon? Squeaky bum time yet?

    Actually, I DID answer your question..

    "I wouldn't know... Not being enslaved by Party ideology, I mean.. :D"

    :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, if Comey's recommendation comes down AFTER Hillary wins the primary, you better get used to saying PRESIDENT TRUMP... :D

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, if Comey's recommendation comes down AFTER Hillary wins the primary, you better get used to saying PRESIDENT TRUMP... :D

    And listen to me gloat for 4 years.. :D

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    wRong Paul doesn't like that white supremacist Trump. He says Government Sachs Cruz is too much like HilRod. He kind of likes that audit-the-Fed guy with the libertarian streak - Bernie the Artful Smearer.

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks for that, Michale!

    He really does look presidential, doesn't he? :)

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    You're putting words in my mouth Michale. I said 'no bet' to me switching to Bernie if he is the nominee, not that I expect Hillary to be indicted. I doubt that will happen, but who knows.

    However I did notice that Paul Ryan pulled the plug on the extremists from initiating congressional hearings on the matter, deferring to the FBI. If the FBI say "nothing to see here" then I expect a clown parade similar to the Benghazi hearings fiasco. This will likely be cast by Hillary as purely political, and it will be interesting to see how the extremists try to reason that it is for some pressing alternative need.

    Hillary will play this as "all the Republican congress can do is waste the people's time and money on frivolous games, this is why they are the least productive congress in history". Most people will agree.

    The RWNJ extremists in congress have met their Waterloo, and it was called Benghazi!

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're putting words in my mouth Michale. I said 'no bet' to me switching to Bernie if he is the nominee, not that I expect Hillary to be indicted. I doubt that will happen, but who knows.

    My apologies. Sincerely..

    I thought you meant the wager on the FBI recommendation..

    If the FBI say "nothing to see here" then I expect a clown parade similar to the Benghazi hearings fiasco.

    And, if the FBI recommends indictments??

    Funny how you don't want to go there, eh?? :D

    If you are so sure, why not make the wager?? I am sure enough of my prediction to risk $100... :D

    The RWNJ extremists in congress have met their Waterloo, and it was called Benghazi!

    Nothing but wishful thinking.. If Comey recommends indictment (which I have provided ample facts to support) It's going to be Hillary's Waterloo.. Right?? :D

    Michale

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thanks for that, Michale!

    He really does look presidential, doesn't he? :)

    A helluva lot more than Hillary.. :D

    But that doesn't say very much...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    Quotes below from FiveThirtyEight, Dec 3, 2015. [Snarky comments] courtesy of me.

    "In 2012, Barack Obama performed 6 percentage points better among white voters with college degrees than those without them, up from a 5-point gap in 2008."

    [The "educated, intelligent" people didn't vote for Romney.] [Bonus point if you recognized the Dover, PA school district reference.]

    "Whites without college degrees are now the bedrock of the Republican coalition: They voted for Mitt Romney 62 percent to 36 percent in 2012. However, their share of the electorate is rapidly shrinking: They skew older and more rural, and we project that their share of the national vote will fall to 33 percent in 2016, down from 36 percent in 2012."

    [Rubio (or whoever) has a rube problem - just ain't enough of them.]
    "Latino voters are a steadily growing share of the electorate, and they gave Obama 71 percent of their vote in 2012"

    and

    "Although Asians and others (including Native Americans, Native Hawaiians and multiracial voters) made up just 5 percent of all voters in 2012, they are the fastest-growing segment of the voting-eligible population. Obama took 73 percent of the Asian vote in 2012"

    [Another demographic headwind for the Republicans]

    To sum up:

    1. 2016 Republican nominees are not reaching out to the growing parts of the electorate, in fact they are insulting them as best they can.
    2. The educated white vote is abandoning the Republican Party because of the extremists we see on TV and their inability to get anything done.
    3. Against the fervent wishes of the RNC, the nominees are doubling down on the only shrinking section of the electorate. (Nobody said Trump or Cruz were clever ... devious, but not clever.)

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    All of those factors where in play in 2014, Neil..

    Can you say... NUCLEAR SHELLACKING OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY???

    Sure ya can... :D

    Ya'all were wrong wrong WRONG then...

    What makes ya think you are going to be RIGHT this time??

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    I already said I'd take your bet, but you need to state a time frame.

    You offered to donate $100 to CW if Hillary was not indicted. You need to state by when.

    I'll agree to donate $50 (you offered 2-1 odds) if she is indicted, but you have to give an end date. This can't be 5 years. Are you willing to accept 3/31/16?

    Also, CW has to agree to confirm that the loser comes through, and it has to be above and beyond the standard annual amounts.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me put it this way..

    Hillary is damaged goods..

    Her trustworthy numbers are in the toilet. Her honesty numbers are in the toilet. Her integrity numbers are in the toilet..

    There is no way she can be elected POTUS...

    No way, no how...

    It's really THAT simple...

    When the FBI recommends indictment, ya'all will be under a GREAT deal of pressure to agree with that assessment..

    :D

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    You offered to donate $100 to CW if Hillary was not indicted. You need to state by when.

    I'll agree to donate $50 (you offered 2-1 odds) if she is indicted, but you have to give an end date. This can't be 5 years. Are you willing to accept 3/31/16?

    No.. I offer $100 to CW if the FBI recommends indictment..

    You will donate $50 to CW if the FBI recommends NOT indicting...

    If the FBI forwards the case to the DOJ w/o any recommendation, it's a push...

    It HAS to be this way because the DOJ refuses to indict against the FBI recommendation it will be solely and completely because Hillary is TOO BIG TO JAIL, not because no crime has been committed or no indictment is warranted.....

    As far as the time frame...

    Let's say by the start of the CW Holiday fundraiser, 2016....

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    2014 was an off year election Michale, 2016 isn't. Totally different electorate.

  41. [41] 
    neilm wrote:

    Fine Michale - You're on.

  42. [42] 
    neilm wrote:
  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    2014 was an off year election Michale, 2016 isn't. Totally different electorate.

    Yea.. "That's different"... :D

    Time will tell.. As it usually does..

    Fine Michale - You're on.

    Graaavy.... :D

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Check this out:

    https://frinkiac.com/?p=caption&q=Welcome+to+Fox+News,+your+voice+for+evil&e=S14E14&t=849766&m=+Welcome+to+Fox+News%3A+your+voice+for+evil.

    You can type any quote in and find a Simpsons scene :)

    Hehe My son emailed me that link as well yesterday..

    It IS frakin' awesome.. :D

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:
  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can type any quote in and find a Simpsons scene :)

    http://sjfm.us/temp/image.png

    :D

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    The other coin tosses that were allegedly won by Sanders are nothing but rumors. There were only 6 documented coin tosses and ALL of them were won by Clinton...

    false statement which fails to take into account the official statement by the Iowa state Democratic Party which conducted the caucus. Unless your sources are the officials of the state Democratic Party, they don't count as credible sources.

    So, what you are saying is that the Iowa Democrat Party caucus is a huge waste of time and doesn't mean anything because Democrat Party leaders will do what they want when the time comes..

    (i) it is the Democratic Party
    and
    (ii) failure to acknowledge that my comment also included:

    Iowa has 44 national delegates and none of them were determined at the Iowa caucuses which are held chiefly to elect county chairpersons and committees and determine delegates to county conferences.

    cherry-picking my comment is disingenuous

  48. [48] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    Out west, the world's first legal drive-through marijuana store will open soon: "A recreational marijuana drive-thru window is set to open in Gold Beach, Oregon on April 20, 2016.

    Sorry, CW, not the world's first: one opened in (near?) Venlo, Netherlands back in the early 2000s, IIRC. I think its closed now, but it was a story in the Dutch papers back then.

  49. [49] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: this is for you: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/all-the-terrible-things-hillary-clinton-has-done-in-one-big-list-2016-02-04

    And somehow I still like her…just Democratic hypocrisy no doubt...

  50. [50] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Whoomp! There it is.

  51. [51] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Bring on the Keystone XL. Take that old lady's house away.

  52. [52] 
    dsws wrote:

    her speaking contract specifies that the only transcripts or recordings of her speeches will be made by her own employee

    I don't think you're correctly interpreting the legal meaning of "only". If it says that only her employee can make transcripts, I don't think that means that she was obligated to have anyone make transcripts. I think it just means that no one else could.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    false statement which fails to take into account the official statement by the Iowa state Democratic Party which conducted the caucus.

    The same Iowa Democrat Party who is in the bag for Hillary and who refused ANY notion of a recount and refused Bernie access to the actual vote counts??

    THAT Iowa Democrat Party?

    Yea.. Reliable source there.. :)

    Iowa has 44 national delegates and none of them were determined at the Iowa caucuses which are held chiefly to elect county chairpersons and committees and determine delegates to county conferences.

    So, if none of the 44 delegates are chosen by the caucus, then the question still remains..

    WHY have the caucus?? :D

    Paula,

    And somehow I still like her…

    Well, there is no accounting for taste... :D

    To be fair though, I really WILL feel bad for you and Mopshell when Hillary does the perpwalk..

    Do you want to get in on mine and neil's bet?? :D

    just Democratic hypocrisy no doubt...

    No doubt. :D

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    false statement which fails to take into account the official statement by the Iowa state Democratic Party which conducted the caucus.

    The same Iowa Democrat Party who is in the bag for Hillary and who refused ANY notion of a recount and refused Bernie access to the actual vote counts??

    THAT Iowa Democrat Party?

    Yea.. Reliable source there.. :)

    Iowa has 44 national delegates and none of them were determined at the Iowa caucuses which are held chiefly to elect county chairpersons and committees and determine delegates to county conferences.

    So, if none of the 44 delegates are chosen by the caucus, then the question still remains..

    WHY have the caucus?? :D

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    And somehow I still like her…

    Well, there's no accounting for taste.. :D

    But to be honest, I really WILL feel bad for you and Mopshell when Hillary does the perp walk...

    Do you want to get in on mine and neil's bet??

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    And somehow I still like her…

    Well, there's no accounting for taste.. :D

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    The NNL filters are especially un-yeilding this morning..

    Suffice it to say that I really will feel bad for you and Mopshell when Hillary does the perp walk...

    :D

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I do have a question for you and Mopshell..

    Gloria Steinman says that millennial females are only for Bernie to chase boys...

    Do ya'all agree with that blatantly sexist statement?

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    Didn't want you to feel left out.. :D

    Here's one for you..

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/02/07/stossel-why-marco-rubio-and-hillary-clinton-are-2016s-likely-nominees.html?intcmp=hphz03

    The logic is sound, I'll grant you that..

    But there's just something icky about it...

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    YOU may still like Hillary...

    The Hillary Clinton email issue is developing into a real whodunit, complete with Clintonesque legal semantics. “I never sent or received any material marked classified,” she said with respect to the discovery of classified information on her private, unclassified email server. That surface denial nearly rivals Bill Clinton’s classic: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

    But this is no laughing matter. . .
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clinton-email-scandal-why-it-might-be-time-for-democrats-to-draft-joe-biden/2016/02/05/cd69dfea-cc18-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html

    But the rest of the Democrat Party is in panic mode...

    But as I said. I WILL feel bad when Hillary does the perp walk..

    Do you want to get in on mine and Neil's bet?? :D

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    But as I said. I WILL feel bad when Hillary does the perp walk..

    To clarify... I will feel bad for you and MS when Hillary does the perp walk...

    But I'll be absolutely ecstatic when it happens... :D

    It will be a fitting end to the Clinton hegemony..

    There simply is no way that the FBI won't recommend Hillary and/or staff be indicted..

    Regardless of what Obama's DOJ does, the FBI recommendation is all that is needed to destroy Hillary and her campaign..

    Oh yes.. I'll be raising a cold one when that happens because, as everyone knows...

    bortaS bIr jablu'DI' reH QaQqu' nay'
    -Klingon Proverb

    :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's go over Hillary's lies with regards to her unsecure, personal, home-brew, hackable bathroom closet email server that she used EXCLUSIVELY for all US State Department business...

    LIE #1
    She said that she NEVER sent or received any classified information on her USPHBHBCES...

    The fact is, she DID send and receive classified information on her USPHBHBCES. This has been proven beyond any doubt.

    LIE #2
    THEN she claimed that she didn't send anything or receive anything that was MARKED classified..

    Ignoring the fact that it's irrelevant whether or not it's marked, as SecState, it was her JOB to know what was and was not classified..

    But, even ignoring that, we discover that she instructed her staff to REMOVE classified markings from classified information and send it in the clear.. Several felonies right there...

    Lie #3

    THEN Hillary claimed that the classifications issue was just squabbling between the State Dept and the Intelligence communities and that the stuff wasn't "really classified"..

    But it's the STATE DEPARTMENT who is classifying the current batch of documents. Documents that are classified TS/SAP which is one of the HIGHEST classifications this country uses..

    Yunno, when you are getting into a hole with all the lies, the FIRST rule is to STOP DIGGING..

    These are the facts, people.. Hide yer heads in the sand all you want, pray pray pray to the gods you don't believe in all you want...

    But the simple fact is, Hillary is dirty...

    And the more ya'all deny it, the more crow ya'all will have to ingest when the FBI hands down a recommendation of indictment..

    Personally, I think this is going to be a sweeter victory for me than the Great Nuclear Shellacking Of 2014... :D

    And THAT was pretty schweet.. :D

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I could drop my pants, press guys would never notice."
    -Jeb Bush

    I think I can speak for the entirety of the civilized world when I say, "Jeb? Please don't..."

    :D

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    WHY have the caucus?

    This has been explained twice to you already. You seem to have a blind spot when it comes to facts.

    So for the third time:

    The Iowa caucuses are held to elect county chairpersons and committees and select county delegates to the county conventions. Period.

    They do not allocate national delegates. They never have. That is not, and has never been, the purpose of the Iowa caucuses. They don't even allocate state delegates. The nearest they get is an estimate of state delegate equivalents.

    That is why the score they give each candidate at the end of the night is in state delegate equivalents. In other words, it's an estimate.

    The media like to escalate it into some kind of drama contest but it really isn't. It's actually very mundane and boring. They only announce the estimated leader on the night and it was so close this time they might as well have called it a tie.

    The result of 7-12 coin tosses to determine the number of county delegates per precinct makes precious little difference overall as it doesn't even add up to one state delegate let alone a whole national delegate. It's infinitesimal. It's as meaningless as saying that the number of votes Jim Gilmore got made a difference to Marco Rubio.

    What's more, the Iowa caucuses do not determine how many national delegates each candidate will get. They each vote their conscience at the National Convention, always have. This is nothing new. It's a tradition that dates back several decades.

    As for authoritative sources, if you don't accept the organisation that ran the Democratic caucuses, then there is no other source. Everything else you hear or read is just hearsay.

  65. [65] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Unless I bothered myself to look at Gloria Steinem's full statement - which I haven't - I can't possible make a fair comment on less than a sentence of whatever she said.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/06/iowans-claim-instances-when-sanders-shorted-delegates/79902080/

    Here's another instant of a delegate awarded to Clinton that should have gone to Sanders...

    These start adding up and, all of the sudden it's SANDERS who won Iowa...

    With all the prostrations of "I FEEL THE BERN" around here, it seems that most everyone is in the bag for Hillary..

    COUNT ALL THE VOTES!!!!

    But ONLY the votes for Hillary... :^/

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    false statement which fails to take into account the official statement by the Iowa state Democratic Party which conducted the caucus.

    A group led by a woman who drives around in a car with HRC2016 vanity plates....

    You do the math....

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unless I bothered myself to look at Gloria Steinem's full statement - which I haven't - I can't possible make a fair comment on less than a sentence of whatever she said.

    Translation: Anything Steinam says in support of Hillary is A-OK with you..

    OK... :D

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny how context and exact words are only important when it's a Democrat who is on the hot seat.. :D

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Department of Signs and Portents.

    I walked through the deep discount aisle of my local bookstore, which is dominated by faux-brow titles from Bill O' and Beck marked down 20%. A yuge (can't resist that) stack of Trump's make America great manual was 50% off, the biggest markdown in the store. Even Carson still sells for 80% of face value.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:
  72. [72] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Mopshell,

    "Gloria Steinem's full statement"

    She didn't really make a statement. She is promoting a book and made an appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher (a comedy program). She said that men get more conservative as they age and gain power and women get more activist as they age and lose power. She seemed to be saying that young women weren't as interested in feminist issues as they will be later in life. She said that young women were concerned about issues that were affecting them right now (she specifically mentioned crushing college debt - a Bernie issue) and then she made a funny about where the boys are.

    Remember the reaction to Nancy Pelosi's joke on Real Time? RWers are the real PC police.

  73. [73] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Bill Maher flirted with 81 year old Steinem. Piers Morgan should do something prudish about that.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    She seemed to be saying that young women weren't as interested in feminist issues as they will be later in life.

    Ahhhhh Left Wingery Hillary spin at it's finest..

    She "seemed" to say...

    But if a Right Winger made some comment like that, there would be no "seemed" about it! :D

    Gods, ya'all don't even TRY to hide the blatant hypocrisy anymore... :D

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    John M wrote:

    With all the controversy over Hillary Clinton's e-mails, I think it is only fair to point out that it has since been revealed that both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, while not having private e-mail servers in their homes, also received private e-mails that have since been reclassified as having contained secret information, just like Hillary Clinton's e-mails were.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    With all the controversy over Hillary Clinton's e-mails, I think it is only fair to point out that it has since been revealed that both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, while not having private e-mail servers in their homes, also received private e-mails that have since been reclassified as having contained secret information, just like Hillary Clinton's e-mails were.

    Sorry, JM... But that is inaccurate..

    The received private emails that was "CLASSIFIED"...

    Not classified SECRET.. In fact, they weren't even classified.. They were marked NoDistro for NO DISTRIBUTION...

    And, as you note, they didn't have a private server, nor did they use private insecure email EXCLUSIVELY...

    That's the difference that makes all the difference..

    Having said that, I fully support a full investigation and prosecution if the facts warrant it..

    Can you say the same thing about Hillary Clinton??

    Of course not...

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    The received private emails that was "CLASSIFIED"...

    Sorry, that was tortured syntax..

    What it SHOULD say is that They received private emails that were "CLASSIFIED"...

    My bust...

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Wow. Hillary Derangement Syndrome is raging out of control and she hasn't even been coronated (haha) the (D) nominee yet, much less president. It's almost as if she's black!

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    What ya'all don't seem to understand is that Hillary Clinton used a private insecure email server *EXCLUSIVELY*...

    That means that EVERYTHING Hillary did, EVERY decision Hillary made, EVERY order or directive that Hillary put out was available to ANYONE with a modicum of hacking skills... And it's well know that North Korea, China and Russia have EXPERT hackers...

    It's all but assured that EVERYTHING that went thru Hillary's private insecure email server was read by Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang within days, if not hours...

    And, since we know that the entirety of the US State Department went thru Hillary's private email server then the ONLY possible conclusion is that Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang knew more about US State Department activities than even OBAMA knew...

    There is only one relevant question ya'all need to ask yerselves...

    If this is nothing but a faux scandal, why would OBAMA'S FBI be expending so much effort and man-power to investigate this??

    If there is nothing there, then Obama's FBI would have took one look and SAID so...

    If one looks at things logically and rationally with out ANY politics whatsoever, there is only one possible conclusion...

    Hillary is dirty...

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    hasn't even been coronated (haha) the (D) nominee yet, much less president. It's almost as if she's black!

    And there's the race card.. Right on time..

    Typical Democrat.... :D

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    false statement which fails to take into account the official statement by the Iowa state Democratic Party which conducted the caucus.

    Hay, I am just arguing Bernie Sanders' position..

    If ya'all have a problem with that position, take it up with him... :D

    It's funny that I am the ONLY one who is defending the ONLY TRUE progressive in the race.. :D

    Love it... :D

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    What ya'all don't seem to understand is that Hillary Clinton used a private insecure email server *EXCLUSIVELY*...

    That means that EVERYTHING Hillary did, EVERY decision Hillary made, EVERY order or directive that Hillary put out was available to ANYONE with a modicum of hacking skills... And it's well know that North Korea, China and Russia have EXPERT hackers...

    Well, either that or you have no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying that Hillary never talked to staff and only used email? Never picked up a phone? never had meetings? Never used all the systems in place to deal with classified information? In four years only dealt with top secret information 22 times and only when not marked as top secret?

    And, since we know that the entirety of the US State Department went thru Hillary's private email server then the ONLY possible conclusion is that Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang knew more about US State Department activities than even OBAMA knew...

    Wow, That's amazing. The state department only dealt with 22 things that were top secret in four years, and never with anything marked as such. I would have thought otherwise...

    Or maybe in your hysteria you are just making things up? Why don't you apply occam's razor to that?

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you saying that Hillary never talked to staff and only used email?

    No, I am saying that it is inconceivable that ANY decision of any consequence was not part of an email chain at some point..

    Never used all the systems in place to deal with classified information?

    There is no evidence that she did.. There IS evidence that her staff did. We have Hillary's email (thru her private insecure bathroom closet email server) instructing Jake Sullivan to extract TS information FROM the classified network, remove classification markings and then send it in the clear..

    Funny how ya'all continue to ignore that.. :D

    In four years only dealt with top secret information 22 times and only when not marked as top secret?

    Actually, the 22 times are the times that the STATE DEPARTMENT is acknowledging..

    There have been identified by the intelligence organizations, yunno.. the ones that actually GENERATE the classified data. over 2000 times..

    Or maybe in your hysteria you are just making things up? Why don't you apply occam's razor to that..

    I will...

    Whenever you have any actual FACTS to support ANY of the claims you are making..

    I also have to ask..

    Would you be this nit-picky if the SecState had a -R after their name..

    Don't bother answering... We both know the answer to that one... :D

    If there was nothing there, why is Obama's FBI putting so much effort, time, money and man-power into the investigation??

    Another question you ignore because you don't have an answer..

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    There IS evidence that her staff did. We have Hillary's email (thru her private insecure bathroom closet email server) instructing Jake Sullivan to extract TS information FROM the classified network, remove classification markings and then send it in the clear..

    Just FYI....

    That's the commission of several felonies on the part of Sullivan AND Clinton.. Very serious...

    At least, serious when the perps have '-R's after their names...

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember when a Bush staffer outed Valerie Plame??

    Oh my gods, the entirety of the Left Wingery went batshit hysterical crazy..

    According to intelligence professionals, Hillary has outed boo koo covert operatives and NOC officers....

    The response from the Left Wingery??

    zzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    Like I said.. Ya'all don't even BOTHER to hide the blatant hypocrisy anymore..

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note..

    Anyone watching the Super Bowl???

    Since we don't have any kind of cable or network TV, we're going to be streaming it.. This year, CBS is putting ALL the Super Bowl commercials in the line up..

    Gonna be fun..... :D

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Carolina sucks!!

    Newtown is WAY out of his element..

    Broncos has this...

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm just looking for a great game ...

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, it's a pretty good game, but I am beat... Hittin the sack..

    Newton looks totally demoralized and beat... The last sack on the last play of the half really beat him down...

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    third quarter, still a 6-point game. great defensive contest.

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not one of the greatest games I've ever seen ...

  92. [92] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    there's still time for it to be great. panthers are back to within six, with lots of time still to go. the defenses are dominating but it's been far from boring.

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    True.

  94. [94] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    or not. denver defense has been lights out. the last defensive lineman to win super bowl mvp was richard dent of the bears 30 years ago, but it would be a crime if that drought lasts any longer.

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There is something to be said for a good defense being a good defense.

  96. [96] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Translation: Anything Steinam says in support of Hillary is A-OK with you..

    You have a very severe comprehension problem, Michale. Your hatred for HRC has evidently distorted your judgement so that you are incapable of understanding plain English.

    This is what you wrote:

    Gloria Steinman says that millennial females are only for Bernie to chase boys...

    Exactly where in that statement did you say that Steinem was speaking in support of HRC?

    Where in that statement did you say she was referring to young women being less interested in feminist issues than older women?

    You've developed a very nasty habit of putting words into other people's mouths. I notice you did the same to neilm earlier. I resent you twisting what I say into lies. I resent your assumptions about who I do or don't support.

    FYI: I am not an HRC supporter. My views would be closer to those of Sanders but I disagree vehemently with his single payer plan. I'm also not a supporter of Joe Biden since it's widely believed that he lied about contacting and talking to Maureen O'Dowd, thereby exploiting his son's death for political purposes. From a personal viewpoint, I find that unforgivable.

    Neither Democrats nor Republicans have a halfway decent candidate for president. Whoever gets the job is not likely to have a cooperative congress so won't be able to get anything done anyway, except Ted Cruz who seems hellbent on turning the republic into a theocracy.

    Because Democrats aren't the slightest bit interested in any race except the presidency, they will lose races down-ticket and serves them right. That means there will be a majority Republican congress again and that's bad news for the American economy.

    The rest of the world will just have to put up with another recession.

  97. [97] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [68] John From Censornati wrote:

    "Gloria Steinem's full statement"

    Thank you very much for that. I didn't realize it had been an interview on Bill Maher's show.

    She's absolutely right about young women; they aren't all that interested in feminist issues. Those of us in the feminist movement have known this for years; it is what it is. The issues just don't impact their lives 'til later.

    The same is true about politics for most young people, male and female. They have more immediate concerns: education, personal finances, relationships, getting into the workforce, where they're going to live and starting a family. These are not small concerns; they're major issues for them.

    Of course it isn't true for all young people but it's a sound generalization.

    Activists are more likely to be older women. You see this in the memberships of women's organizations like Zonta International, Soroptimist International and Equality Now.

    Of course Gloria Steinem would be well aware of this. She's been a part of the feminist movement all her adult life.

    If she wants to make a joke about young women, I'm not going to judge her. She's a better person than me. I do find her support of HRC to be unexpected though.

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Your comments tend to the very nasty, Mopshell.

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    FYI, Mopshell, I am talking about your comments, in general but, your outrageous accusations against the vice president, in particular, are especially inexcusable.

  100. [100] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Mopshell,

    "I do find her support of HRC to be unexpected though."

    She wasn't there to promote HRC. She was promoting her book about her life on the road. She was answering the questions that Bill Maher asked her, and of course, he was interrupting and joking because he's a comic. He asked her why she thinks young women support Bernie and she gave them credit for rationally looking out for their economic interests. If she endorsed Hillary on that show, I missed it.

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    She's absolutely right about young women; they aren't all that interested in feminist issues. Those of us in the feminist movement have known this for years; it is what it is. The issues just don't impact their lives 'til later.

    So, in other words, you agree with Steinem that young female voters are only supporting Bernie to get boys...

    How is this not sexist??

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    PuppyMonkeyBaby

    :D

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can't say much for the first half, but the Denver defense OWNED Cam Newton from play 1...

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Exactly where in that statement did you say that Steinem was speaking in support of HRC?

    Apparently, I am not the only one who can see that Steinem comments were in support of Clinton..

    CONCORD, N.H. — On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the country’s first female president has encountered an unexpected problem: she is having trouble persuading women, young and old, to rally behind her cause.

    The latest sign came Sunday, when a new CNN/WMUR survey here showed Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont beating Clinton among women by eight points — which represents a big shift from the results last week in the Iowa caucuses, where Clinton won women by 11 points.

    The survey followed unintentionally problematic comments over the weekend by Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem, older trailblazers who were trying to encourage younger women to support Clinton.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/02/07/8c73740c-c50a-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html

    Gotcha... :D

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    “My concern is that your answer that nothing new was found in the Benghazi hearings continues to give me some doubts. Everybody knows you can’t write 30,000 emails to your yoga instructor.”
    -Woman Voter To Clinton

    So much for the claim that voters don't care about Benghazi and emails...

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I am concerned with the abuses of Wall Street has taken with the American taxpayers money," and then she asks whether you would release the transcripts of your Goldman Sachs speeches, and then added, "Don't you think the voting public has a right to know what was said?"

    It's very telling that Hillary does not want to release the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches...

    http://nypost.com/2016/02/07/hillary-cant-dodge-goldman-sachs-questions-forever/

    What is she hiding???

    Don't the American people have a right to know what Clinton said to Wall Street??

    Don't the American people have the right to take that secrecy and guile into account at the ballot box??

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    But getting back to the Super Bowl...

    Cam Newton now must face a sickening reality
    http://nypost.com/2016/02/07/cam-newton-now-must-face-a-sickening-reality/

    And the reality is... He ain't all that....

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    It’s almost over for Hillary: This election is a mass insurrection against a rigged system
    Sanders has ended the coronation and fired up the grass roots. Now Clinton's electability argument is crumbling too

    http://www.salon.com/2016/02/07/its_almost_over_for_hillary_this_election_is_a_mass_insurrection_against_a_rigged_system/

    It's long, but a good read...

    One thing is clear.. Bernie won the popular vote in Iowa..

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    FYI: I am not an HRC supporter. My views would be closer to those of Sanders but I disagree vehemently with his single payer plan. I'm also not a supporter of Joe Biden since it's widely believed that he lied about contacting and talking to Maureen O'Dowd, thereby exploiting his son's death for political purposes. From a personal viewpoint, I find that unforgivable.

    Neither Democrats nor Republicans have a halfway decent candidate for president. Whoever gets the job is not likely to have a cooperative congress so won't be able to get anything done anyway, except Ted Cruz who seems hellbent on turning the republic into a theocracy.

    Because Democrats aren't the slightest bit interested in any race except the presidency, they will lose races down-ticket and serves them right. That means there will be a majority Republican congress again and that's bad news for the American economy.

    I stand corrected..

    So, you agree with me that Sanders is a MUCH better candidate, a MUCH better person than Hillary...

    Would that be a fair assessment, a fair comprehension :D of your words??

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Having said that, I fully support a full investigation and prosecution if the facts warrant it..

    Can you say the same thing about Hillary Clinton??

    Of course not..."

    Yes Michale, actually I can. Will you still stand by your statement that you will accept the results if a full investigation leads to a finding of no wrong doing and no prosecution?

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all can also read how other women felt about Steinem's claims...

    https://www.facebook.com/GloriaSteinem/posts/10153237059092854

    It's pretty clear that my assumption about Steinem's HRC support by way of her comment with Bill Maher is dead on ballz accurate, MS's and JFC's responses notwithstanding...

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in the CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE department..

    Not a big fan of Lady Gaga by ANY stretch of the imagination. When I heard she was singing the National Anthem, I had to roll my eyes..

    But she was good. No.. She was great.. Not quite as great as Whitney Houston (THAT was perfection personified) but Gaga did really great...

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-presidential-hopefuls-sanders-clinton-dead-heat-reuters-133828882.html

    Bernie came back from a 30-point deficit to effectively tie Clinton in national polling...

    Go Bernie!!! :D

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bill Clinton accuses Sanders' supporters of sexism
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bill-clinton-accuses-sanders-supporters-of-sexism/article/2582714

    Bill Clinton complaining about sexist abused is like Captain Kirk complaining that Spock gets all the women...

    :^/

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    apropos to nothing in particular, here's an interesting article on jeb:

    http://tinyurl.com/hjpd38w

  116. [116] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as for cam newton, it wasn't so much him that was exposed as just how insanely good the denver defense was this year. the exact same thing happened to tom brady and ben roethlisberger. those guys are not exactly scrubs, and they both got plastered. it's said that defense wins championships, and this time it did, end of story.

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, Bronco's D was awesome, no two ways about it..

    But Cam didn't even put up a fight.. While I didn't see it, the second Miller fumble, Cam just turned away...

    It's obvious that Cam knows how to win..

    The mark of a good leader is knowing how to lose..

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    VIDEO: Newton Walks Out Of Interview Following Super Bowl 50 Loss
    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/02/07/cam-newton-super-bowl/

    The mark of a petulant child and a sore loser...

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Yes Michale, actually I can. Will you still stand by your statement that you will accept the results if a full investigation leads to a finding of no wrong doing and no prosecution?

    Abso-frakin'-loutly..

    If Director Comey says that no prosecution in this case is warranted, then I will accept that..

    But who here will agree to the opposite??

    Who here will admit that, if the director of the FBI puts forth a recommendation of prosecution, who here will concede that this WASN'T a faux scandal after all??

    Who here will concede that Hillary IS dirty??? That the allegations against Hillary ARE valid..

    I am betting not a single person... :D

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I am betting not a single person... :D

    That's because you know that we are all very reasonable people.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's because you know that we are all very reasonable people.

    When it comes to anything and everything except '-D'/'-R' issues, I would agree...

    :D

    But there seems to be a blind-spot here when it comes to malfeasance committed by anyone with a '-D' after their name..

    Which the lack of response to this comment....

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/02/04/gop-tickets-out-of-new-hampshire/#comment-69680

    ... aptly proves.

    If someone of Comey's reputation and integrity says that the issues warrant prosecution, there is simply NO DENYING that the issues warrant prosecution...

    At least, they would if the subject has a '-R' after their name...

    Having said all that, ONE Weigantian has gone on record as saying he will accept Comey's recommendation...

    Anyone else want to go on the record?? :D

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-staff-shakeup-218955

    All is not rosy in Clinton-Land...

    It's gonna be Bernie!! :D

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Having said all that, ONE Weigantian has gone on record as saying he will accept Comey's recommendation...

    Make that two of us.

  124. [124] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    If you haven't seen Bern Your Enthusiasm, you should do that now.

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having said all that, ONE Weigantian has gone on record as saying he will accept Comey's recommendation...

    Make that two of us.

    Fair enough.. TWO Weigantians who said they will accept the FBI recommendation...

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Bubba went on a rampage against Bernie... I expected him to say, "I mean, come on!!! A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our luggage!!"

    Won't nobody but me defend the Bern??!!?? :D

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I think that it’s about time that voters got a glimpse of reality, which is what’s happening, and President Clinton did that. It was a strong call to arms, particularly to her supporters — and I include myself in that — who have stayed too quiet in the face of those character attacks, and that’s over. What she correctly called the ‘artful smear,’ we need to call attention to..”
    -David Brock

    Something about a pot and a kettle come to mind..

    Gee what was that??

    Michale

  128. [128] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    cam newton really was a sore loser and childish to boot. he's young though, maybe he'll grow up. it could be worse, he could be johnny manziel...

  129. [129] 
    John M wrote:

    "Having said all that, ONE Weigantian has gone on record as saying he will accept Comey's recommendation...

    Make that two of us.

    Fair enough.. TWO Weigantians who said they will accept the FBI recommendation..."

    Actually that makes THREE of us, since I had already said in my previous post that I would also, which you failed to mention.

  130. [130] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller [98]

    FYI, Mopshell, I am talking about your comments, in general but, your outrageous accusations against the vice president, in particular, are especially inexcusable.

    You're the one who sided with Maureen O'Dowd when I was siding with the Vice President. You're the one who maintained that Joe Biden contacted Ms O'Dowd and gave her the story. You're the one who dismissed paternal grief as not sufficient reason to stop VP Biden deciding to run for president. The accusations are all your outrageous accusations; they come directly from you.

  131. [131] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    John From Censornati [99]

    She wasn't there to promote HRC. She was promoting her book about her life on the road. She was answering the questions that Bill Maher asked her, and of course, he was interrupting and joking because he's a comic. He asked her why she thinks young women support Bernie and she gave them credit for rationally looking out for their economic interests. If she endorsed Hillary on that show, I missed it.

    That makes far more sense. Thank you, John.

  132. [132] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    I wrote:

    She's absolutely right about young women; they aren't all that interested in feminist issues. Those of us in the feminist movement have known this for years; it is what it is. The issues just don't impact their lives 'til later.

    Michale - you totally misunderstood every single word I wrote and made up your own version when, again, you put words in my mouth:

    So, in other words, you agree with Steinem that young female voters are only supporting Bernie to get boys...

    I never said that nor anything remotely like that. I never mentioned Sen Sanders. I never said anything about getting boys. This is a very nasty habit you have, Michale. It's dishonest and offensive.

  133. [133] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller [97]

    Your comments tend to the very nasty, Mopshell.

    So do yours.

  134. [134] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale -

    This is what you wrote in [57] about what Gloria Steinem said:

    Gloria Steinman says that millennial females are only for Bernie to chase boys...

    One and a half lines. That's it. That's all. Apparently you think I'm a mind-reader and from those one and a half lines I was supposed to figure out that you thought Gloria Steinem was was speaking in support of HRC and that she was referring to young women being less interested in feminist issues than older women.

    Without referring to anything except the one and a half lines you wrote in comment [57], without dragging in other stuff you never mentioned until much much later, explain precisely how I was supposed to know all that?

    I did tell you I had not read anything about what Steinem said. It was obvious from my comments that I didn't know she'd been interviewed on a comedy show and that I had no idea of the context of her remarks.

    So now, it seems, you are calling me a liar. You're now trying to make out I knew about the Steinem interview when I didn't. I can't imagine why you think I'd lie about such a thing.

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually that makes THREE of us, since I had already said in my previous post that I would also, which you failed to mention.

    JM, my bust... You are correct and I do apologize..

    THREE Weigantians will accept the FBI findings if Hillary is dirty...

    Michale

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    I never said that nor anything remotely like that. I never mentioned Sen Sanders. I never said anything about getting boys. This is a very nasty habit you have, Michale. It's dishonest and offensive.

    You seem to want to play semantic games...

    Steinem said that young girls are going where the boys are and that's why they support Bernie..

    *I* am not the only one who knows that this is what Steinem said..

    If you want to argue semantics, argue with the young women who were deeply offended..

    If you believe that Steinem "is absolutely right about young women; they aren't all that interested in feminist issues." then you must also agree with Steinem when she said that those young ladies are only supporting Bernie because that's where the boys are...

    And by saying that, THAT is de-facto support for Hillary Clinton..

    Don't take MY word for it..

    You're one of my heroes, Gloria, and to hear that you quite plainly stated "the boys are with Bernie" in response to why young women are voting for Bernie Sanders was not only a sexist statement, but extremely disheartening. Young women and women such as yourself are in this struggle together, and while I appreciate the apology, this statement doesn't really confront the problem, nor how much damage your statement did. You chalked up an entire generation of women as brainless who vote for a man's approval. That's not why we earned the right to vote.
    -Chelsea McCallum Donaldson

    Neither am I, Chelsea. Gloria Steinem ruined her credibility as a feminist with her blatantly sexist, demeaning comment (which was obviously an attempt to bring women over to Hillary through shaming them), and her apology was more of a defensive PR statement than anything else. I am mightily disappointed in you, Gloria. You were my hero.
    Tamlyn Jordan

    How could that have been misunderstood? You did exactly the opposite of your goal which was to lean us towards Hillary! Between you and Madeline Albright you're driving us right into Bernie's arms! I vote with my brain and my integrity not my vagina!!! #bernitdown
    -Mandy Carson-Kimura

    It was not 'misinterpreted' you said young women choose their political candidates based on what boys want. That was sexist and ridiculous. This is a non-apology. Apologize outright for what you said, but don't make it our fault for 'misinterpreting' you. This was YOUR misstep, not OURS. Own up Gloria Steinem.
    -Allison Oaks

    Thank you for the clarification. As a feminist who was a women studies major at a woman's college, I was disheartened to think a woman I looked up to thought so little of me and my fellow women's ability to think and make decisions for ourselves that we could be swayed to vote for a candidate because of superficial issues like gender or bc that's where the boys might be. I first donated to Bernie's campaign one week after he declared and still wonder what took me a week. This election is a make or break moment for the direction our country is going and I want Bernie as my president.
    -Kira Elise

    Read all the women who were insulted by Steinem.. Take THEIR word for it.. Play the Semantic Game with THEM...

    Michale

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    PORTSMOUTH, N.H. — Many women who showed up at a presidential campaign rally for Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., at Great Bay Community College on Sunday said they were insulted and “offended” by supporters of Hillary Clinton who have suggested it is somehow anti-feminist to back Sanders instead of Clinton’s quest to become the first female president.

    Cokie Giles, a registered nurse from Bangor, Maine, who traveled to neighboring New Hampshire for the rally, said she does not appreciate being “herded along just because I’m a woman.”

    “Well, I don’t want to think that I have to vote for a woman, being a woman, because there’s a woman running. They have to be who I would look at as … my best choice,” Giles said. “I’m not trashing Hillary. I’m just saying Bernie is the better of the choices. And I will get a chance to vote for a female president. I would like to see a female president, and there’s plenty out there that I would be very happy to do.”

    Two high profile feminist Clinton supporters, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and women’s rights activist Gloria Steinem, have made headlines with recent comments about female Sanders supporters.
    https://www.yahoo.com/politics/women-who-support-bernie-sanders-respond-to-234239662.html

    That's who you are arguing with....

    Michale

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Considering what Hillary did to the sexual assault victims of Bill Clinton, I can't see how ANY woman who calls herself a "feminist" can support Hillary Clinton...

    It boggles the mind...

    Michale

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hate Rush Limbaugh all you want..

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/02/08/feminists_sold_their_souls_in_the_90s

    But he is dead on ballz accurate here...

    The minute feminists looked they other way with Bill Clinton's serial sexual abusing and rapes, that's when they lost ALL credibility...

    This is simply undeniable..

    Michale

    Michale

  140. [140] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So do yours.

    How so, Mopshell?

    It's actually very funny how people who constantly complain about ad hominem attacks are the ones who actually engage in that sort of behavior. That may warrant some reflection.

  141. [141] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You're the one who sided with Maureen O'Dowd when I was siding with the Vice President. You're the one who maintained that Joe Biden contacted Ms O'Dowd and gave her the story. You're the one who dismissed paternal grief as not sufficient reason to stop VP Biden deciding to run for president. The accusations are all your outrageous accusations; they come directly from you.

    Mopshell,

    That's just another one of your typical tirades that can only be described as non-serious.

  142. [142] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    shall we get back to the actual discussion? before the whole tangent about what gloria steinem did or didn't mean, i thought the question was about why young people (women included) tend to be bernie supporters. nate silver's analysis seems pretty spot-on to me. younger voters are more likely to support anything that steps outside the perception of 2-party establishment hegemony regardless of political labels, be it trump, sanders, ron paul, etc.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-young-democrats-love-bernie-sanders/

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    nate silver's analysis seems pretty spot-on to me. younger voters are more likely to support anything that steps outside the perception of 2-party establishment hegemony regardless of political labels, be it trump, sanders, ron paul, etc.

    Sounds reasonable..

    Michale

  144. [144] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    I think people are attracted to Sanders's message because it speaks to what has been the real problem with American politics for a very, very long time - the dominance of big money in the process.

    Time has finally come where people who are concerned about the impact that big money has on the political process and how that influence inhibits real progress on any number of issues that people care about have simply had enough of the establishment and incremental progress.

    I think the feeling is that there isn't the luxury any longer of waiting for change to happen in an environment in which real change can't happen. So, it's time to begin to change the environment.

    Sanders understands this very well. Hillary, not so much, it seems. But, there is plenty of time for her to get on board and, if she does, then I think there will be no stopping her!

    Young voters may be providing the thrust for the Sanders campaign engines but, I'm guessing that most Democrat voters feel the Bern, too. Which is why I think Hillary needs to stop talking about making slow progress and start challenging people across America to think big. She could be the ultimate "up-wing" candidate and leader if she takes that path.

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Young voters may be providing the thrust for the Sanders campaign engines but, I'm guessing that most Democrat voters feel the Bern, too. Which is why I think Hillary needs to stop talking about making slow progress and start challenging people across America to think big. She could be the ultimate "up-wing" candidate and leader if she takes that path.

    All partisan aside, I think it's too late for Hillary.. Hillary has been Hillary for almost a half a century..

    Even if she WERE to have a sincere epiphany and move to the Left of Bernie, no one will buy it.. They'll just think it's pandering...

    Hillary has made her bed....

    Michale

  146. [146] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That may be true, Michale but, given the rest of the field, especially on the Republican side and the nagging concern that Bernie isn't "presidential", this may indeed be Hillary's time.

  147. [147] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, it's also not too late for Sanders to chart a better course - one that allays concerns that people may have about his shortcomings, particularly his lightweight foreign policy chops and how he expects to deal with a very partisan congress.

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, it's also not too late for Sanders to chart a better course - one that allays concerns that people may have about his shortcomings, particularly his lightweight foreign policy chops and how he expects to deal with a very partisan congress.

    I would give the same advice to Bernie as I did to Trump..

    Towhit, surround himself with people who make up for his deficits... Choose a VP or a SecDef who is military or knows how to lead soldiers...

    Michale

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why Clinton will fail..

    For Hillary Clinton, it’s Deja Crazy Vu.
    http://ramblingmanblog.com/for-hillary-clinton-its-deja-crazy-vu/

    The problem is Clinton herself.. No one trusts her..

    Michale

  150. [150] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, that is an important part of it.

    I would just reiterate that it is also important that a candidate has his or her own strong underpinnings on the issues.

    Sanders does, I think whereas, Trump does not.

  151. [151] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I would also remind that when I say "foreign policy chops" I am not just - or even primarily - talking about the use of the military.

    Foreign policy goes way beyond just military matters - or, at least, it should.

    In other words, diplomacy is not a sign of weakness but rather a sign of strength.

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, diplomacy is not a sign of weakness but rather a sign of strength.

    Depends on what kind of diplomacy we are talking about..

    If it's DIPLOMACY AT ANY COST, then that is not a strength..

    It's a weakness...

    Michale

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sanders does, I think whereas, Trump does not.

    I disagree, but there is time for that debate...

    The debate now is which Dem candidate would be a better POTUS...

    Hillary or Bernie....

    The answer is clearly Bernie...

    Michale

  154. [154] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If it's DIPLOMACY AT ANY COST, then that is not a strength..

    Indeed. But, it's not. That's not what I'm talking about, Michale.

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a completely unrelated note..

    Anyone know why the NFL switched from Roman Numerals to Alpha-Numeric Numerals for Super Bowl 50???

    Michale

  156. [156] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Huh?

  157. [157] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

    Apparently, I am posting comments too quickly and I need to slow down. :)

  158. [158] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you know what the Roman numerals are for 50? :)

  159. [159] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, that would have made perfect sense ... Ha!

  160. [160] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you know what the Roman numerals are for 50? :)

    I thought it was 'L'...

    Which makes it sound like an MIB agent... :D

    Michale

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhhh I see.. Thanx Liz..

    Can't wait for the 599th Super Bowl

    SUPER BOWL LIC heh

    Michale

  163. [163] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    There's no such thing as roman numeral LIC.

    599 is DIC; 59 is LIX. as i recall, there was a miami herald hunt clue that directed you to go to a place on the map where Publix was and "take half off the entire store." the answer to the clue was 59.

    http://www.vwtech.com/tropichunt/year_detail.asp?huntyear=2006

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's no such thing as roman numeral LIC.

    Killjoy.. :D

    Michale

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in the ONLY IN FLORIDA segment..

    Man Throws Live Gator Into Drive-Thru Window
    http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Man-Throws-Live-Gator-into-Drive-Thru-Window-368163271.html

    How does one throw an almost 4 foot alligator thru a small drive thru window??

    Practice... :D

    Michale

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Federal Judge just halted Obama's nefarious Global Warming plan.. :D

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/9/obama-carbon-emissions-rule-halted-supreme-court/

    Obama just can't catch a break.... :D

    Michale

  167. [167] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller [140]

    It's actually very funny how people who constantly complain about ad hominem attacks are the ones who actually engage in that sort of behavior. That may warrant some reflection.

    You should take your own advice given that this is yet another of your snide little put-downs together with:

    [141]
    That's just another one of your typical tirades that can only be described as non-serious.

    I'm sure you had a word other than "non-serious" in mind but chose the mundane option in order to couch your put-down in the guise of "being polite".

    When it comes to anything I say, you go instantly on the offense. You can't seem to help it -- and you even once said something to that effect:

    Comment [8] Monday, August 31st, 2015 at 21:14 PDT
    Sorry, I couldn't resist ... I'm not that strong.

    That of course followed another of your little digs at me.

    I get it. You dislike me. I'm not exactly enamored of you either, especially not of your obvious disdain.

    While ironically I share many of your viewpoints, I'm happy to agree to avoid responding to any of your comments from now on. In addition I agree to refrain saying anything negative about Vice President Joe Biden in consideration of your feelings.

  168. [168] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Mopshell! I don't dislike you ... I don't know you well enough. :)

    Non-serious was precisely the word I had in mind. I use it a lot. It's a word that I have happily appropriated from one of my favourite political analysts to describe comments (not people, mind you) that I find to be lacking in seriousness. Just ask Michale. Heh.

    My wicked sense of humour was showing when I mentioned that I couldn't resist, I'm not that strong. You know, just trying to keep things light.

    Speaking of which, I hope you don't avoid responding to my comments since I will not be showing the same restraint toward yours. And, you can be sure that goes especially with regard to any more unwarranted accusations against the vice president. Consider yourself forewarned!

  169. [169] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Wait a second!

    ... [8] from August 31st!!!

    Is that what you call holding a grudge? :)

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://news.yahoo.com/barry-manilow-rushed-hospital-cancels-shows-211038818.html

    NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Michale

  171. [171] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    He'll be alright ...

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, he's only 71...

    But he's a musical genius!! :D

    Michale

  173. [173] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Answers to my 2/19 politifact quiz:

    Candidate #1: Donald Trump

    Candidate #2: Hillary Clinton

    Most Truthful (69.62% truthful): Jeb Bush

    Biggest Liar: (14.81% truthful): Ben Carson

    JL

  174. [174] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    methodology disclaimer - i added the true, mostly true and half-true, then divided by the total number of statements. degrees of truth or falsehood were not weighted, although at least on the face the results all seemed pretty consistent in terms of their distributions.

  175. [175] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    oh snap, i got it wrong! i miscalculated hillary clinton's total. she actually topped bush for most truthful, at 72.04% - sorry hillary!

Comments for this article are closed.